From: Edward O'Connor [mailto:[email protected]]
>> But soft encapsulation is just as useless for explaining the platform >> as no encapsulation at all. > > I think "just as useless" overstates your case. Type 2 allows you to hide > implementation details of your component from authors better than Type 1 > does. Yes, it's not isolation for security purposes, so it doesn't get you > the whole way, but like Brendan said, we shouldn't let the perfect be the > enemy of the good. Well, but *for explaining the platform* it is just as useless. It may be useful independently for authors who wish to protect against interference by people who are afraid of feeling bad, but it is not useful for explaining the platform. My personal perspective is that it is already a shame we are on track to have two versions (in some sense) of web components: the existing one, and one that explains the platform. It would be a shame to have a third in between those two, that is unlike the existing one but also does not explain the platform. So I guess along this axis I would strongly prefer "perfect" to "good," I suppose because I think what we have already is "good."
